Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> My hope remains that we settle on MIT. If the W3C and WHATWG can't come
>> to an agreement on a license, then we will need to revisit this -- but
>> then again, we will need to revisit a lot of assumptions, so I would
>> recommend that we cross that bridge when we get to it.
>
> I assume you mean "If the W3C and the HTMLWG participants can't come to an
> agreement...", not "W3C and WHATWG"; I'm unaware of any W3C/WHATWG
> communication on the subject. As far as I'm aware, it's only an internal
> HTMLWG issue regarding the licensing of the HTMLWG deliverables.
The action is clearly on the HTMLWG side at this point in time
(specifically, ACTION-29). Should the W3C decide to permit this working
group to settle on MIT, I would hope that this resolves the issue.
- Sam Ruby